Agreed and I agree with Adams, being momentarily for adding Texas, but later as a member of the House,
he was against it, as uncharacteristic.
Maybe it is just me, but I see all those early filibuster attempts at separating Texas from
Mexico as merely a prelude to the US sweeping in to take over. And like you wrote, officially
the US was not behind any of those numerous attempts, and never offered any kind of support,
but all those machinations, even the short Freedonian Rebellion by the Edwards brothers,
Haden and Benjamin in 1826, sure made Mexico jumpy about the pushy intentions of the Americans.

As a Texan, I'm pretty certain the US didn't give a flip if Texas was thought of as Mexico. Thats a reason for the conflict. Mexico was threatening Texas territory, which was US territory. If Mexico threatened Texas now the US would respond.

As whatever your local or national identity may be, you are simply wrong; Mexico was not threatening anything.

And such evident fact is not going to change just for fallacious bare assertions, no matter how enthusiastic and even ad infinitum.

Agreed and I agree with Adams, being momentarily for adding Texas, but later as a member of the House,
he was against it, as uncharacteristic.
Maybe it is just me, but I see all those early filibuster attempts at separating Texas from
Mexico as merely a prelude to the US sweeping in to take over. And like you wrote, officially
the US was not behind any of those numerous attempts, and never offered any kind of support,
but all those machinations, even the short Freedonian Rebellion by the Edwards brothers,
Haden and Benjamin in 1826, sure made Mexico jumpy about the pushy intentions of the Americans.

Mexico was right to be concerned about the filibusters. Their hold on Texas was incredibly slight. Very small population centered only around the San Antonio area. No troops to speak of. The land was open and Americans were spreading west at alarming rates. And by 1826 they were already signing up Americans as Mexican citizens in order to populate the place and try to hold it. A move that can easily be seen as 'daring the wolf to eat the flock'.

But the move by Austin and the others demonstrates something else also. As does the popularity of Burr. The early Americans, particularly in the west, had not yet developed a very close relationship to the new nation. They were more than willing to sign their citizenship away for adventures and a new life in Texas. Most of the ones who came to Texas in those early years weren't doing so well in the US. Home to debtors, wife abandoners, and glory hounds (sound like Travis? Bowie? Crockett? ) In other words, Texas remaining part of Mexico or simply remaining separate from the US suited many of them just fine.

Don't forget Baltis, I'm a Texas History teacher and when you bring up Texas
History, I'm grading you! LOL

You're correct on your points, although some of your wording hits me like
a rock in my shoe while on a 16 kilometre run.
Yes, Coahuila y Texas were cobbled together in 1824 to form a Mexican state
and they had the same problem that Spain had always had: population.
That's why Spain/Mexico's empresario idea was a curse and a blessing. Men
like Stephen Austin, Samuel May Williams, Green DeWitt, Martín De León,
Haden Edwards, Sterling C. Robertson, John McMullen and Arthur G. Wavel filled
that role very well in bringing in families. Too well it seemed.
By bringing in so many American people, they naturally brought with them their
way of life and came to expect, or almost demand, certain rights that they were
used to. Eventually that butted heads with Mexico's laws. "GTT" Gone to Texas was a huge pull for many Americans who had suffered in the
1819 depression and were blocked by high land prices in the US. Being able to
come to Mexico and buy (I'll have to check the exact number) 4,000 acres of land, far more
cheaply than in the US, was a big selling point.
The big rip in this happy fabric was the rise of Santa Anna, whom the Texans at one
time supported, to power and his Federalist Party. When he pulled the plug on Federalism and
moved the nation to Centralism, the Texans and a lot of other Mexican states, rebelled.
In came the war-hawks from the US looking for action and the rest is History.

Yes, a curse and a blessing. Mostly curse as it turns out. They did mean well but I think a good modern sociologist would tell them it was a hopeless idea. English culture was bound to dominate given that almost all new immigration was from the US.

I kind of feel like the US national intent is not represented in the early immigration. Folk who, for whatever reason, were fed up and leaving the US for 'greener grass on the other side of the mountain'. I understand that, even if they don't represent national intent, they are, nevertheless, the beginning of that intent. Also true that the more ambitious among us see opportunity to expand first, and then over time, something like concensus develops from open debate and discussions. I think my personal feeling is that the process of open discussion and developing that concensus starts with the revolution. make sense?

But, as you had pointed earlier, the idea was beginning with some of our folk long before that.

The situation in Texas (North Mexico) was made tense by
the report from Mexican General Manuel de Mier y Terán.
In 1829 he toured the border with the US and made other reports
of observation that he reported back to President Guadalupe Victoria.
In his report he noted the lack of Mexican citizens that far north, an
estimated 30,000 Anglos compared to about 7,000 native Mexicans.
He called for more military garrisons and to stop immigration not so much
from Europeans, but targeted at Americans. His suggestions led to the
dreaded Law of April 6,1830 which was aimed at suspending existing empresario
contracts the building of customhouses along the Texas coast and other points of interest.
This one move so upset the Texans, that it is often called the"Stamp Act of Texas" History.

The situation in Texas (North Mexico) was made tense by
the report from Mexican General Manuel de Mier y Terán.
In 1829 he toured the border with the US and made other reports
of observation that he reported back to President Guadalupe Victoria.
In his report he noted the lack of Mexican citizens that far north, an
estimated 30,000 Anglos compared to about 7,000 native Mexicans.
He called for more military garrisons and to stop immigration not so much
from Europeans, but targeted at Americans. His suggestions led to the
dreaded Law of April 6,1830 which was aimed at suspending existing empresario
contracts the building of customhouses along the Texas coast and other points of interest.
This one move so upset the Texans, that it is often called the"Stamp Act of Texas" History.

He must have felt like he was watching the proverbial 'train wreck'. Helpless to stop the rushing locomotive.

As I understand it, the Law of April 6, 1830 went a bit further. Literally banned further immigration from the US. Canceled settlements of less than 150 families. Imposed tariffs. Revoked their property tax exemptions. And insisted upon emancipation of all slaves.

There were also provisions for giving land, etc. to Mexican families if they would move to Texas.

It all pretty much failed. With nothing to stop them at the border, American families simply continued to come in. Meanwhile, Mexican families seemed to have very little interest in coming north.

Was this law the reason for Austin's trip to Mexico and subsequent imprisonment?

Guess that under the same standard Denmark (with or without the EU) should have destroyed and absorbed Turkey, Macedonia, Somalia, Iraq, Bosnia, Armenia & Georgia, among other nations...

The relations between nations are hardly ever so simple.

I prefer a stronger military to keep out all those criminal and unproductive individuals
They sell marriages among families to get a licence to be here and when they obtain such one, they try to make it like in their shitty home-countries and complain if we do not respect every single small tradition of theirs.

I prefer a stronger military to keep out all those criminal and unproductive individuals
They sell marriages among families to get a licence to be here and when they obtain such one, they try to make it like in their shitty home-countries and complain if we do not respect every single small tradition of theirs.

More or less like in any at least reasonably affluent nation all around this Planet, yup.

On the other hand, progressively aged affluent societies regularly tend to require at least some help from migrant workforce.

The average woman (illegal migrants duly included) of the EU has some 1.6 children; 1.74 in Denmark.

As you are probably well aware, an average of 2.1 children born per woman would be required just for demographic stability (i.e. no natural population decline)